Former NFL Player John Welbourn Says CrossFit Doesn’t Build Athletes – Popular Youtuber Breaks Down Why He’s Wrong

In his latest YouTube video, Zack Telander—a respected voice in the strength and conditioning community and someone not typically known for praising CrossFit—steps into controversial territory: defending CrossFit’s role in athletic development.

Though Telander has often critiqued aspects of the CrossFit methodology, this time he flips the script. Not because CrossFit is flawless, but because many of the arguments made against it, especially from former insiders like John Welbourn, are rooted in oversimplifications and misleading assumptions.

“The argument that CrossFit is just bilateral hip hinging in the sagittal plane is not as strong as you think it is,” Telander says. “And even if you made that argument, most CrossFit coaches would agree with you that it shouldn’t be used in every situation.”

Let’s break down the real issue, and why demonizing CrossFit isn’t just unfair—it’s scientifically and practically short-sighted.

The CrossFit Critique: What’s Being Said

John Welbourn, former NFL player and once part of the CrossFit Football initiative, has become one of its more vocal critics. In a recent clip reviewed by Telander, Welbourn takes issue with CrossFit’s application in sport-specific training, claiming:

“It’s nothing but sagittal plane, bilateral hip hinging… everything could be done in a hallway.”

Welbourn argues that CrossFit movements, like kipping pull-ups or Olympic lifts, lack the multi-planar, ground-based complexity required in sports like football. His central thesis: CrossFit may increase work capacity, but it fails to develop athleticism.

At first glance, the argument seems plausible. But as Telander points out, it collapses under closer scrutiny.

The Misunderstood Sagittal Plane

Most CrossFit movements do occur in the sagittal plane—the forward and backward movement plane that includes exercises like squats, deadlifts, and presses.

But according to Telander, that’s not a flaw. It’s a necessity.

“This is the vacuum that every strength and conditioning coach creates: ‘Movement in gym is not movement on the field—therefore movement in gym is bad.’ They don’t understand periodization and phases of training.”

In truth, sagittal plane movements build foundational strength and resilience. They’re essential for developing the raw power that supports more complex, sport-specific actions down the line. Without this base, even the most “functional” drills have limited value.

Weaponized Specificity: A Faulty Argument

Telander introduces a term to describe this line of attack: weaponized specificity. It’s the tendency of certain coaches to use specificity as a cudgel, claiming that anything not mimicking game-day movements is irrelevant or even harmful.

“They weaponize the idea of specificity to fight against your squats, your deadlifts, your pull-ups, your presses… so they can sell their programming,” he says.

The logic becomes dangerously narrow. It assumes that all training must look like the sport—ignoring the science of general adaptation, load progression, and macrocycle planning. The gym isn’t where athletes rehearse game tactics—it’s where they prepare their bodies to withstand and excel in those demands.

CrossFit and the Real Problem: Fatigue Management

Where critics like Welbourn do raise a valid concern is in fatigue management.

High-intensity CrossFit MetCons (metabolic conditioning workouts) can be brutally taxing. For a football player deep in a training camp or pre-season practice schedule, layering on a workout like “DT”—a grueling series of deadlifts, hang cleans, and overhead presses—might be more harmful than helpful.

But that’s not a programming flaw inherent to CrossFit.

“The issue is not exercise selection,” Telander explains. “It’s the loading, the volume, the frequency… It’s not smart to throw a brutal MetCon at a 20-year-old D1 athlete right before they head to practice. But you know who would agree with that? CrossFit coaches.”

What Actual Athletic Programs Look Like

Using real-world examples, Telander illustrates how strength and conditioning programs blend CrossFit principles—squatting, pulling, Olympic lifts—into intelligent programming.

When he worked with Texas A&M Rugby and Northwestern University Football, athletes weren’t stuck in a single plane of motion. Training often began with plyometrics and transverse plane movement drills, followed by bilateral strength lifts.

“They would do cutting drills, rotational plyos, then go into the weight room and squat, deadlift, press. And they got better.”

This hybrid model acknowledges what many critics don’t: there’s a time and a place for every kind of movement, and the offseason isn’t the same as in-season. Periodization matters. So does athlete readiness and developmental stage.

The Bilateral Bias Backlash

Welbourn also argues that athletes with certain body types—like long femurs or long tibias—are naturally disadvantaged when squatting. His solution? Avoid bilateral squats altogether.

Telander finds this logic lazy.

“What that says to me is they have robust control over the mobility in their hips, knees, and ankles. Period. That’s what a squat tells me.”

For him, bilateral squatting isn’t just about leg strength. It’s about coordination, mobility, and ownership of movement. Yes, unilateral work has its place, but removing bilateral lifts like squats from a program entirely creates more problems than it solves.

Power Cleans and the Fear of Complexity

A similar argument is often made about the hang power clean—a staple in CrossFit and Olympic weightlifting. Detractors say it’s too technical, too dangerous, or too slow to teach.

Telander disagrees.

“The hang power clean is incredibly valuable as a power developer. It’s safe. It’s fast to teach. And it works.”

He’s used it with athletes at every level with great success. The problem isn’t the movement—it’s the perception. Too often, coaches dismiss useful tools because they’ve been misapplied or poorly coached elsewhere.

CrossFit Isn’t the Enemy—Misuse Is

Despite all the nuance, the criticisms of CrossFit often boil down to a simple narrative: “It’s not sport-specific, therefore it’s bad.”

But Telander urges coaches to move beyond black-and-white thinking. Most CrossFitters and CrossFit coaches would agree that a general WOD (Workout of the Day) isn’t suitable for a D1 football team during pre-season. That’s not a revolutionary critique—that’s common sense.

“You have to be specific in what you’re arguing against,” Telander says. “And when you get specific—fatigue management, loading, periodization—I promise you the CrossFit community will be right there agreeing with you.”

The takeaway isn’t that CrossFit is perfect. It’s that the broad-based condemnation of CrossFit lacks nuance, ignores actual practice, and discredits tools that could benefit athletes when used correctly.

In the end, Telander isn’t asking anyone to replace their strength and conditioning programs with CrossFit. He’s asking for honesty, clarity, and smarter conversations.

Because when the debate is rooted in real training science—not fear, not dogma—athletes win.